On his blog, John Lott writes
The Public's Response to Michael Moore's Sources
David Letterman: How do we know what's in your film [Fahrenheit 9/11] is true?
Michael Moore: Because I got most of my information from The New York Times.
Audience: Wild laughter.
Letterman: [Strains to repress laughing]
Moore: What's so funny?Late Show with David Letterman
June 18, 2004
However, this transcript seems to be a fabrication. Nathan at BlueB has the correct version:
Letterman: And, and we can absolutely believe the sources you've used in assembling your documentary?
Moore: Oh yeah, it's New York Times, it's the Wall Street Journal, it's, it's, uh --
Letterman: Well, the Times [starts laughing, audience laughs, Michael Moore laughs] - depending on what day it is....
Letterman: Hang on a second, we'll be right back here with Michael Moore.
You can check this for yourself by looking at the video over at One Good Move.
Nathan also has the details on how the bogus transcript has been spread by bloggers. The primary vector for spreading it seems to have been a post by Eugene Volokh. Unlike Lott, Volokh at least cautions his readers that the transcript may not be accurate, but he has not yet corrected his post, even though I emailed him about it a few days ago.
The bogus transcript is sufficiently different from the correct version that I don't think it likely to be the result of an error, but if you can think of a plausible explanation, please leave a comment.
Update:Volokh has posted a correction, writing "Another beautiful story ruined by ugly fact". Pejman Yousefzadeh, however, isn't one to be swayed by a mere fact.
Update 2:Yousefzadeh still doesn't get it. (You can watch the video if you want to see what I mean).
I'll pass on any other explanation, [off topic] but will point out someone else under the illusion that John Lott's research is sound. Meet Mike Adams: [/off topic]
Some of my colleagues disagree with his recommendations for public policy but are completely unable to specify any flaws in his research or in his logic. In fact, one of them once told me that he was very disturbed by data indicating that right-to-carry permits seemed to be reducing the amount of crime in jurisdictions that had made them available.
Tim,
I forwarded a link to your post here to Eugene Volokh and have an answer from him indicating that he will check the transcript for accuracy; momentarily, he is tied up looking at a couple of late breaking Supreme Court decisions. Volokh is very conscientious about accuracy in matters such as this.
I emailed Adams when his article appeared, but he did not correct it. Time for a post.